So I was reading a fascinating story in the New York Times today when it abruptly ended with a peculiar sentence:

“Mr. Lorello noted in his confession that most of what he stole was not particularly valuable (some of his items sold for as little as $10). Most of the artifacts were known among dealers as trash, he wrote, although he used a trashier word than trash.”

Please don’t keep us in suspense, Eric. What word did he use? The only ones I can think of at the moment are synonymous with excrement but surely that is only because I have a limited imagination.

This morning I was looking over my AT&T bill in their online account manager
when I somehow ended up at a page advertising the availability of DSL service without having to pay for a voice line. Since for the past 5 years or so I have been paying for a service I don’t need, don’t use and don’t want; this seemed like a great deal to me. While the monthly rate is about 11.44% more than what I pay now, it is still better than paying the extra 43% I now pay for a voice line I don’t use. The last time I had looked into AT&T’s “naked DSL” service offerings, the service offered was not only slower than what I currently have but more expensive than what I pay now for the DSL and voice line combined.

So I called the number listed and after going through the extremely annoying voice prompt phone tree and waiting on hold for a few minutes, I was informed that I should call the “dry loop” number which is 1-800-264-0002. This time I waited much longer on hold (about 15 minutes). Finally, I got to talk to a real live person. She asked for some information to look up my account so she could check to see if I could get it or not. So about a minute goes by and she informs me that it is available and starts to explain the order process. But then she notices that her system now says I can’t get it which she says is very strange. She says she’ll try something else and after a few minutes says it is available and she is putting the order through now. But then she says it was rejected. So it seems I can’t get it after all. This makes no sense as there is certainly no technical reason why they can’t provide me with the service I already have without charging me for another service which I don’t want or need.

Adam Liptak’s Sidebar column in the New York Times today reports on a case involving searches at the border:

A couple of years ago, Michael T. Arnold landed at the Los Angeles International Airport after a 20-hour flight from the Philippines. He had his laptop with him, and a customs officer took a look at what was on his hard drive. Clicking on folders called “Kodak pictures” and “Kodak memories,” the officer found child pornography.

The search was not unusual: the government contends that it is perfectly free to inspect every laptop that enters the country, whether or not there is anything suspicious about the computer or its owner. Rummaging through a computer’s hard drive, the government says, is no different than looking through a suitcase.

One federal appeals court has agreed, and a second seems ready to follow suit.

There is one lonely voice on the other side. In 2006, Judge Dean D. Pregerson of Federal District Court in Los Angeles suppressed the evidence against Mr. Arnold.

“Electronic storage devices function as an extension of our own memory,” Judge Pregerson wrote, in explaining why the government should not be allowed to inspect them without cause. “They are capable of storing our thoughts, ranging from the most whimsical to the most profound.”

Computer hard drives can include, Judge Pregerson continued, diaries, letters, medical information, financial records, trade secrets, attorney-client materials and — the clincher, of course — information about reporters’ “confidential sources and story leads.”

But Judge Pregerson’s decision seems to be headed for reversal. The three judges who heard the arguments in October in the appeal of his decision seemed persuaded that a computer is just a container and deserves no special protection from searches at the border. The same information in hard-copy form, their questions suggested, would doubtless be subject to search.

This is certainly an interesting case. Those who know me are well aware that my contempt for child molesters and consumers of child pornography is boundless. Indeed, while I strongly oppose the use of torture in interrogations (not only because I believe it is morally wrong but also because it is ineffective), I would make an exception to allow child molesters and abusers to be tortured over a long period of time as a form of retributive justice. However, I am also a strong supporter of the constitutional right of individuals in the United States to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Thus, I don’t believe that government agents at the border or anywhere else should have a nearly unlimited power to search through persons and their belongings without reasonable suspicion, probable cause or a search warrant. I do think the border is a special case and different rules should apply but there should still be limits on the power to search. Unless there is reasonable suspicion or probable cause, the scope of searches at the border should be limited to the primary mission of U.S. Customs and Border Protection: preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, stemming the flow of illegal drugs and other contraband and protecting the United States agricultural and economic interests from harmful pests and diseases. They should not have the unchecked power to look at every file on a traveler’s laptop or read every document in a traveler’s possession. Nevertheless, under current case law they do have that power. The “Border search exception” article on Wikipedia has some good information on that subject. I listened to the audio of the oral argument before the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Arnold and, while I haven’t read all the briefs in the case, I have to say that the government’s position and argument struck me as being very strong and compelling while the appellee’s argument was weak and not very persuasive.

More about this later…